lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
    On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
    > On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
    >>
    >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and
    >>> "lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from
    >>> SELinux.
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
    >>> ---
    >>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 ------
    >>> security/selinux/Kconfig | 29 -------------------
    >>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 15 +---------
    >>> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
    >>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
    >>> index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644
    >>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
    >>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
    >>> @@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@
    >>> loaded. An invalid security module name will be
    >>> treated
    >>> as if no module has been chosen.
    >>>
    >>> - selinux= [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time.
    >>> - Format: { "0" | "1" }
    >>> - See security/selinux/Kconfig help text.
    >>> - 0 -- disable.
    >>> - 1 -- enable.
    >>> - Default value is set via kernel config option.
    >>> - If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be
    >>> used
    >>> - later to disable prior to initial policy load.
    >>
    >>
    >> No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of
    >> this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one
    >> ...
    >>
    >> Not a fan unfortunately.
    >>
    >> Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user
    >> visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and
    >> minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake.
    >
    >
    > Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their
    > grub config. We have to retain the support.

    Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)?

    -Kees

    --
    Kees Cook
    Pixel Security

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-10-02 16:44    [W:2.716 / U:0.376 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site